Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In February 2014, BMJ published the findings of the twenty‐five‐year follow‐up of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study. Data from this study indicate, the article reports, that mammography screening in women aged forty to fifty‐nine does not reduce the death rate from breast cancer “beyond that of physical examination alone or usual care in the community.” Based on these findings, the authors suggest it is time to reassess the value of mammography screening. This report has reignited an often acrimonious debate about the value of screening people for various diseases when no symptoms are present. As with the recent controversy about the value of prostate cancer screening, the debate about mammography screening offers two important lessons about science, technology, and medicine: scientific evidence carries serious limitations, and we need a better approach to assessing it than the current fragmented one .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.317 | 0.724 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.051 | 0.058 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".